Just curious. Are those which were banned on the BABB still banned on this board, or can they return?

__________________
"It's time to receive our missions from The Head."

We have only banned one person, so far. Right now we're giving a temporary amnesty.

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

Will we use this thread as a new start for the 'Banned users' thread we had on BABB? In that case, ProjectOrion is the first one of the new list!

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I think it's a good idea. Start from scratch and get a list for the new board.

Could we get this thread (or a new one) stickied for that purpose?

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

I feel really uncomfortable about putting emphasis on all the banned folks and talking behind their backs. I'd rather they just disappeared, no fuss no muss. It's probably unrealistic, but I don't even want to spare extra brain power on it at all. The only value I see is for people to learn from others' mistakes. But then, how hard is it to understand the concept, "be nice"?

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

Then again if it was so easy to implement "being nice" nobody would get banned

__________________
In the depths of a mind insane,
Fantasy and reality are the same.

To be honest, I agree with you. Without specifying which, I'd left several boards because of a history of back-biting and gossip.

But that's why the banned persons thread is so useful. The reason for a banning is documented, no big fuss to be made, and we move on. Otherwise, the subject keeps coming back over and over again: "Why did so-and-so get banned?", "Was it fair?", etc.

And Sleepy made an excellent point on the other thread.

To amplify, we occasionally get hopeless trolls creating woo-threads, with masterful debunkings (often, coincidentally enough, by JayUtah). If all of their posts and threads are deleted, the replies go too. Including the posts that happen to be worth preserving intact, and in context.

On a visceral level, I had a post in one of projectorion's threads. It wasn't much of a post, nothing I can't reproduce at will given similar circumstances, but I find myself resenting (more than it's worth, but there it is) that it was removed essentially to try out a new feature.

For what it's worth, and while I realize some things are necessarily going to change, I think this is important enough to request that there be a clear consensus between the admin on this matter.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

I don't so much care about making it sticky, but I think there's a valid point to be served in having a Banned Users thread. there have been times when someone disappears from one thread for having gotten banned over behavior in another, and it's good to have one concrete place to find out why. what I found interesting--and this may have been due to the excellent values Phil's instilled in us--was that we were still way more interested in where the person's ideas were wrong than where the person was wrong.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

So, a question if I may: in my experience, on several fora as a mod, there are folk who register and whose first post pretty much makes it clear what their intention is.

I'm talking of spam advertising of the most blatant kind (blatant, given the forum's stated rules, reasons for existance, etc). Examples include porn (it can be mildly amusing to see how many English phrases can be used to convey the message 'we have lots and lots of porn on our site'), 'cheap software', cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, gambling, 'prescription' medicines, and 'misplaced Nigerian millions'.

I put it to all readers of this thread that there is so little benefit available, in the best of all possible worlds, from including folk who engage in this kind of activity in a 'banned posters' thread that the 'default mode' for mods is by far the best - delete on sight, permanently ban the 'member'.

Regarding folk who were previously banned - either in BA, or UT, or both - if despite an amnesty, their behaviour is egregiously 'not nice', what is to be gained by advertising (and discussing) the fact(s)? If there is a very strong case to be made that they were trolling, surely the existance of such discussions counts as a success for their efforts?

Curious Nereid

We don't expect bannings to be a staple event. If the moderators/admin as a group (and It'll always be as a group) decide to ban someone it'll be for a very good reason and always as a last resort. I guess it comes down to whether or not you trust us - the mods along with Fraser and Phil - to make the right decision that's best for the board?

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

Exactly if you can't trust the mods/admins then who can you trust? it all basically comes down to common sense and nettiquette. If you can't abide by the rules given out by the admins/mods or you flaunt the rules constantly despite warnings to the contrary then you don't belong here or on any other forum online. Simple as that.

It's not as bad as you might think, Nereid. Hit-and-run trolls never draw much comment, if any at all. What little attention projectorion's banning drew was unusually high, and pretty much only because we're still sorting out a common procedure.

You typically only see a significant amount of conversation when there's something unusual about the banning, especially when a popular regular gets banned.

It's a pity you didn't have a chance to browse the old banned posters thread for a few pages to see what was involved. It was pretty terse. The extent of conversation about the vast majority of the bannings, trolls included, was "SoAndSo, banned for [link]offense[/link]." And that's it.

If trolls somehow get their jollies from that, then I suppose I won't lose sleep over it. They're gone in any case.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

Josh, no offense, but I don't know you. (Yet.) Trust takes time and effort to build.

Actually, there was a case not that long ago where Phil had to reverse a pair of bannings. Because Phil is transparent about his reasoning, because we knew why Phil had banned these two posters, the membership pretty much as a whole had been able to determine that Phil had misread the situation. The resulting protest (which was epic) caused Phil to review the situation and correct the mistake. (It is definitely a mark in Phil's favor that he is willing to do so, rather than bury his mistakes.)

Now, I suppose its ultimately up to the modship how transparent you intend to be, but you need to understand that (speaking for myself only) the reason I trust Phil's modship implicitly is because he explains his official actions, and as such gives us an opportunity to appeal when it is warranted.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

None taken ... I'm not saying we aren't going to be open about it. I'm just wondering if there's as much a need for it as some others do. i don't mind either way. In the past Phil was the lone wolf handling everything. Bannings and the the like will now be debated and deliberated on by 15 of us.

Regardless of the level of transparency, if anyone has any concerns about any moderation actions they can message us directly - that's what we're here for. If anyone is having a problem with a moderator they can message Fraser and Phil. Not that that'll be happening ... we're a lovely bunch of coconuts.

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

Both Phil and I are totally dedicated to transparency; however, there's a certain level of material that's just SPAM, and that's where you need to have faith that we're just ganking that stuff. Banning is actually a marginally effective deterrent. Any reasonably technical person can easily circumvent the ban and start posting again. At some point you just add that person to a delete on sight list and make posting on the forum as unpleasant as possible. So, the situation leading up to the ban will be transparent, but the following battle will probably happen behind the scenes.

It was a little harder on UT because I had several sections that allowed guests to post. I think I ended up banning 5 people in more than 2 years. I think I'm the pushover parent compared to Phil. :-)

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

Right, actually, I have no real concerns on that score. I trust Phil, ToSeek and Wolverine having had plenty of time to get their measure over the past few years. I have no doubt the rest of you will earn my trust before long.

The banned posters thread really doesn't have all that much to do with trust on its face. It's just a user-maintained log so we don't have to pester you guys with questions whenever someone disappears. It's not like you guys actually have to post in it. Phil never did. His ban notices were posted in the offending thread (which is where the transparency comes in). Absolutely anybody can add to the log when something comes up.

It's proven to be a benefit in the past, and I suspect the BABBers will ultimately maintain it regardless, if only out of habit.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

That, and Phil's Just A NICE Guy ...

The Same Goes for ToSeek and Wolverine!!!

The Little I've Seen of Fraser, so far, Seems to Suggest he's Cut, from The Same Cloth.

And, as for you, Josh, Well, It's Hard, Not to Like, A Fellow Trekkie ...

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

Emphasis added.

Oh, just watch... Now all the mods will get into fights over particular bannings and they'll end up having to ban each other.

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums

Nah .. we just go in and edit eachother's posts to make us sound dumb.

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74